Tv Violence

Issue: Should Such Programming Be Regulated?

May 4, 2007

Congress, at the urging of the Federal Communications Commission, may be about to wade into an issue that has always proved troublesome for Americans. But that doesn't mean lawmakers should shrink from it.

What do we mean by "free speech"? How free do we want it to be? And when does certain speech become detrimental from a social and societal point of view? Such questions are fair to ask throughout our culture, but they may apply especially to television programming broadcast over the public airwaves.

What you can see and hear on TV these days is truly disturbing. It's not just the sex and violence, but the way they're presented. It's the glorification of violence. It's the titillating and sophomoric treatment of sex and sexuality. And it's the way entertainment programming tends to mock virtue in all its forms.

For decades the FCC has had the authority to prohibit sexually "indecent" programming, although lately it seems the agency has fallen asleep on the job. What it hasn't had is power to regulate violence on TV. Now it wants Congress to give it that power.

Congress should proceed with caution. Numerous studies show that TV violence can be harmful to children. But there are also free-speech and constitutional issues that can bedevil the best-intentioned legislation.

How, for instance, should objectionable violence be defined? Where is the line between legitimate portrayals of violence, such as in shows about war or crime, and gratuitous, harmful ones? Still, if objectionable televised sexuality can be defined reasonably well, the same ought to be true of violence.

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our constitutional democracy. But as has often been said, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and if violence on television is slowly eating away at the health of our culture, it should be addressed in a serious, careful and effective way.

BOTTOM LINE: Yes, but with an eye on the Constitution and practicality.